A Local Authority v A Mother

In deciding whether a putative father and extended family should be notified or assessed in an adoption case involving a concealed birth, the court must conduct a fact-sensitive balancing exercise.

Relevant considerations include parental responsibility, any established or potential family life, the substance of the parents’ relationship, the realistic prospect of family placement, the impact of notification, cultural and religious factors, the availability and durability of confidential information, and delay. A mother may be persuaded to provide identifying information, but cannot be coerced. Where further investigation would be futile or would expose the mother or child to grave risk, confidentiality may properly be maintained.

The Local Authority applied for declarations relieving it from notifying, consulting or assessing the putative father and paternal family in relation to a child placed with foster-to-adopt carers. It also sought permission to withdraw care proceedings and a declaration that it need not notify the Pakistan High Commission of the appointment of a guardian under Article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963.

The mother maintained that disclosure of the concealed birth could expose her and the child to honour-based violence, potentially including death. The applications were opposed in part by the Children’s Guardian, who proposed a short adjournment for further attempts to obtain the father’s telephone number. The central issue was whether further notification or investigation was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

1. Declaratory relief granted. The Local Authority was relieved from any duty to notify, consult with or assess the putative father or the paternal family. Permission was also granted to withdraw the care-order application.
2. The court applied the approach identified in A, B and C [2020] EWCA Civ 41. There is no single test. The court must balance the relevant circumstances, including parental responsibility, Article 8 rights and any established or potential family life.
3. The putative father had no parental responsibility. On the available evidence, he had no Article 8 rights in respect of the child. Even if such rights existed, they did not outweigh the other considerations.
4. The substance of the relationship was relevant. It was a casual relationship based on deceit, followed by no commitment by the father to the child or engagement with the Local Authority. There was no evidence that a paternal family placement was a realistic alternative to adoption.
5. The risk of honour-based violence and its physical, psychological and emotional consequences were amongst the most serious considerations. The relevant cultural and religious factors placed the case at the upper end of the scale.
6. The mother could be asked or persuaded to provide information, but could not be forced or coerced. A further request for the father’s telephone number would be futile because the issue had already been addressed by court order and repeated attempts at persuasion.
7. The possible delay caused by investigating family members, potentially in Pakistan, supported making the declarations. The court therefore considered it inappropriate to adjourn the matter for further enquiries.
8. Following Re O [2021] EWHC 908, Article 37 of the Vienna Convention should ordinarily be complied with, but notification may be disapplied where it would be contrary to the child’s welfare and best interests. That condition was met.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.